when I speak of the ‘Second Gulf War’ I mean the 1991 war (when the Iraqi air force should have been “Overflowing with spares, a trained pool of pilots, and all sorts of support aids”).

I don’t deny that aircraft like the MiG-25, MiG-31 or even the F-14A are extremely useful aircraft to have in your air force if you already have them in service and you are willing to pay to keep them in service – but in most cases you’d be better of with 3 MiG-21s for every 1 MiG-25 you could afford to operate.

The Indian air force has just about operated every type of Fighter produced by the MiG-design bureau – except of course – the MiG-25. Which is kind of ironic considering the IAF already had the MiG-25R in service. Why would the IAF go to great effort and expense to create the technical infrastructure to operate the MiG-25R and not add in a few squadrons of MiG-25P as well?

Vanir, I mainly agree with what you have to say about MiG-31, has anyone actually said it was a dude. I think the main criticism that can be levelled against the Foxhound is that it’s such a one-trick-pony for such a complex and expensive system. Is it capable of shooting down every ALCM and B-1B or just 10% of them. If only 10%, what’s the point then?

Comparing the MiG-31 with the F-14 is always apt in many ways – they are both similar air defence aircraft with big radars and big missiles.
We haven’t actually seen the MiG-31 in combat, and in fact we know little about its peace time operations with the Soviet and Russian military. However, we do know a lot about the Tomcat in peace and war. We know that it was a capable fighter in in the first gulf war fighting with the Iranians in BVR. We also know that the Iraqi air force was able to successfully shoot down the F-14 with less expensive aircraft – MiG-21, MiG-23, F1, etc. Iranian F-14s were not fully successful in defending their airspace from the Iraqi air force and not fully invulnerable to its fighters either. Imagine if Iraqi MiG-29s actually met with F-14s in the last year of the war – and if you can imagine the outcome of MiG-29 v F-14 you could probably imagine the same for MiG-31 v F-15.

In the end, what finished the F-14 in USN service was was complexity expense and low availability rate. 70 F/A-18 flying 3 sorties a day probably provides better air defence to a Carrier Battle Group that 35 F-14s flying 1 sortie a day.
I dare say that suitably upgraded Su-27s and MiG-29s armed with R-77s, could quite easily replace the FOXHOUND for less expense and simplified maintainance.

Seen as we’re talking of a scenario happenning in the late cold war period, it should remembered that the MiG-31’s avionics, including radar, had been compromised by CIA’s Soviet spy Adolf Tolkachev, an employee of NIIP, the designers of the Zaslon radar. He supplied the Americans with a lot of info during the 1970s and 80s, which the USAF must surely have acted upon – I wonder how the F-15’s ECM was designed to tke advantage of this knowledge of the MiG’s avionics?:confused:
Can the ECM on a F-15C jam A Zaslon (in 1988)?

And why is that? Because the AIM-54 is in fact superior or because the R-33 never saw combat in the first place? Without getting into the question of which one actually is the better missile (I don’t profess to know that), this is clearly a pointless apples and oranges comparison.

We may not be comparing assault rifles here, but if any real insight is to be gained from a comparison, it should be based on measures which actually are comparable.

And that is more or less my point. Everyone is agreed that a kalashnikov is more dependable than an M-16 – the evidence is there as a result of the use of both rifles in 101 conflicts around the world for eveyone to see.
Like you I also don’t know which missile is more effective, I just wonder how Yefim Gordon is so sure, that’s all.

And you are welcome to back up your words. Yefim is respected writer, even if there are mistakes or bias in his books.

And Yefim Gordon has also to back up his words as well. Did he quote a source for the information on the AIM-54, anything in the bibliography?
Yefim is certainly well known as an authority on Soviet and Russian aircraft, being a Russian himself he would find it easier to gain access to the people who produce and operate aircraft with red stars on them, but he is not particularly well known for his background in American aerospace, or is he?

If I recall, the Royal Danish air force has only lost 4 or 5 F-16s in the last 30 years or so, for a total of 250,000 flight hours achieved last year.